IGF 2025 - Day 2 - Workshop Room 2 - WSIS+ 20 Open Consultation Session with Co facilitators

>> SPEAKER: Good morning, everyone. It is great to see so many of you here. This is the workshop on the WSIS+ 20 with the co‑facilitators. Can you hear me? A little bit of context, this is the 20‑year review. And we are already deep into the process. We are very lucky to have with us the co‑facilitators that have been assigned in order to make sure that we see the end of the process. This is the 20th iteration of the Internet Governance Forum which is one of the outcomes of the summit of the information society. I will not be taking more time, because the idea of today's session is to hear from the co‑facilitators and for you to ask any questions that you may have. I would just like very quickly to present to my right we have the excellency, the representative of the Republic of Albania, and to my left, his excellency, the representative of the Republic of Kenya to the United Nations. With that, I'll turn to you for your opening remarks.

>> ALBANIA: Thank you very much. It is an honour to be together with you to exchange some views that we have been tasked to follow on the WSIS+ 20. This is a comprehensive review of the summit on the information society. As we commemorate 20 years since its conclusion. This review process which will culminate in the high‑level meeting in December this year provides an important opportunity to assess the collective progress in the space of WSIS and also in the same time to shape our vision for the digital age. The consultations are intended to serve two core purposes.

First, to have your recommendations for the WSIS+ 20 document, and second to gather input from the WSIS+ 20 element paper which was published last week on the 20th of June. It is available at the UN DESA web site. Now please allow me to introduce some of the elements of the preparatory process that will follow.

First, we have some consultations with member states and with the stakeholders. Further on we had some more dialogues in forums, including UNESCO which took place in May and also we are present all this week at the IGF and the ITU WSIS+ 20 forum. The relevance paper, as I mentioned, was published on the 20th of June. A summary will be shared soon by my colleague.

Is there a draft that we intend to produce? We hopefully will have it available in August, late August after we hear and we have a contributions. Written contributions that also hearing from you during this week and the week of Geneva.

After that, we expect some rounds of consultations to take place. Some of them will take place virtually to allow a big number and more number of people and contributors to have their say in the outcome. But at the same time, we'll have rounds of contribution in member states in New York as well. Let me emphasis the review process is firmly grounded on the resolution, 79/277 which reaffirms the multistakeholder module encompassing the Civil Society, private sector, and technical community. We thank the IGF to gather the additional perspectives and contributions to the element paper.

This review is not merely an exercise in documentation, but mostly a moment to reaffirm our shared commitment to shared and oriented information society while tackling the challenges such as the official intelligence, digital conclusion, and capacity building.

Bridging the digital divide weather in terms of connectivity, capability, or participation is also center pillar of our work. The WSIS will not only be fully realised when all countries and all communities within them enjoy equal access to the opportunity of digital transformation. This is not only a question of infrastructure but one of voice, agency, and equity in shaping the governance of our shared digital future.

As co‑facilitator, we have actively engaged with stakeholders. We are continue to do so. Are looking forward to continuing the dialogue in Geneva. Allow me again to emphasis the importance that we give to the process and the fact that WSIS process belongs to all of us. None of us has ownership on it only. So that's why we need to work together and to foster space in collaboration. The space which is transparent and ambitious at the same time which builds on past commitments, but also is responsive to today's evolving digital landscape.

With that first presentation, I would like to hand it over to my colleague. We are really very pleased to have the opportunity to exchange with you. I hope that the interactive dialogue that we could have later on will be very meaningful and essential for our work. Thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. For purely logistic purposes, go to the left and right and microphone and start lining up for your questions.

Please.

>> KENYA: Thank you. Let my join my colleague in thanking you and telling you how grateful we are to be here and joining you at IGF. We note this is an engaged community. Allow me to make three quick points.

First, we are mindful that the WSIS+ 20 review is happening at a time of heightened or consideration geopolitical activity. Just like many other processes that are happening at moment, we found they have a form of impact on the current process. We are mindful of that. The second is we are undertaking the process for the digital government. We have it updated by the member states which has the global digital compact as part of this. In the process, we are the choice of accessing the related processes have happened or conduct the WSIS+ 20 review.

Sometimes as co‑facilitators we found yourselves in a situation where we have to acknowledge the existence of the processes. The general point I would like to make is it is not the intention of this elements paper to resurrect all controversies. We know that WSIS is one of those processes that has gone on for 20 years now. We intend to build upon the progress that's been made without any attempt to resurrect or relitigate controversies that have been and are taken in the past.

With that said, let me observe that in producing the elements paper. We adopted a measured approach. Measured in the sense that we tried one to acknowledge what has been achieved. The progress that has been made since the WSIS+ 10. Second to appreciate the processes that are all developments within the digital space which have taken place, for example, the AI wasn't a big deal ten years ago. Now you can't have any conversation on the digital space without making reference or acknowledging the AI revolution, if you can call it that.

So, I know that as I said that you have gone through this. I'll highlight some of what we consider to be important or key points of the elements paper. First, the elements paper offering the structured and forward‑looking synthesis drawing from the 20‑year review. The UN secretary general report and the contributions. It recognises the WSIS+ 20 review as a key import into the 2030 review on the agenda for sustainable development. I must announce the paper is not a final text. Neither is it a zero draft. On the invitation for all of us to ship the next phase of the information society, we therefore urge broad engagement, especially where the feedback is exclusively invited.

We have a section on communication and information technologies for development. We note that they have expanded dramatically. Here digital inequalities persist, especially for the one third of the global population that remains offline. More input to solve this persistent digital access affordability and capacity gaps that are welcome. It is critical to other countries and societies. It will be interesting to hear from you how some of the structural gaps that exist can be closed. The structural gaps within the digital economy and what models would support, for example, the micro small and medium‑sized enterprises and ensure that the digital opportunities is inclusive.

Barriers remain in the infrastructure. It will be interesting to hear other things about delivery and equity in national and digital strategies. On the environmental impacts, we note that ICTs are part of the solution. They offer solutions on climate action and so on. But also need a lot of energy, you know, to be able, for example, to run data centers. So these are a footprint there on the environment.

So, we would welcome a discussion on how we can reduce the ICT environmental footprint through the better recycling and sustainability standards. On building the digital divides and enabling environment, our holistic approach is needed for legal coherence, innovation, and rights and human rights protection.

I would have and welcome a discussion, presentation, on what strategies would best integrate innovation, regulation, and rights. Then out of the section on financial mechanisms, we note that there's increasing investment, although it is not even on the divide again can ‑‑ it is apparent when you look at developing and developed countries. And quite a lot of countries still remain underserved. I would like to hear from you what mechanisms can increase the equitable financing for the digital infrastructure and readiness for AI.

On human rights and ethical dimensions, WSIS reaffirms that human rights that I enjoyed offline must be protected online as well. Yet the digital harms persist, especially for women, children, and other vulnerable groups. So we encourage you, all stakeholders, to suggest approaches that will operationalise the rights best, safe, and inclusive digital ecosystems.

And on confidence and security and ICT, we note that security remains essential to the implementation of the WSIS outcomes. We therefore invite proposals on how we can enhance confidence and cybersecurity capabilities in alignment with existing platforms. Internet governance and it is appropriate that we are having this conversation here at IGF 20th anniversary. We acknowledge as the primary multistakeholder forum. We've heard, for example, during the consultations with different stakeholders, calls for the renewal of the mandate of the IGF or strengthening of the mandate or even in some cases calls to make it a permanent institution that's able to access financing from regular resources, so the United States.

So, I would be keen to hear your inputs on whether ‑‑ I don't know whether is the question here. There seems to be unanimity. Finally we have some of the areas that are emerging, there's a lack of capacity in most places. Proposals are being formatted in light of the working group on the data governance. Stakeholders are invited to make contributions on their perspectives.

On artificial intelligence, AI is shaping the development. Although R&D processes are concentrated in only certain geographies to the exclusion of many other parts of the globe. This poses governance and channels. Therefore we are welcome any discussions or comments and inputs on how we can align AI governance with the global digital compact and ensuring digital inclusion in the benefit that is AI presents.

At this point, I know this is a big discussion, how, for example, form consultations they need to reimagine and others that are of a different view. We have the mechanisms and coordination.

Finally, on monitoring and measurement, we note that the WSIS+ 10 in 2015 did it not establish any WSIS targets. They have other benchmarks to measure the activity. With the data that's available now, there might be the need, perhaps, for us to set the target. We leave this to you. Whether or not we need to establish the targets for measuring the input and it will inform the zero draft proposals on future monitoring and measurement frameworks.

On full up and review, I would like to hear about mechanisms that are part of the WSIS+ 20 structure. So, I think ‑‑ I know it is difficult to summarise this quickly. I'm also mindful I'm in the presence of an audience that is willing to engage on the issues and which, no doubt, has taken an active dive into the elements paper. We look forward to hearing your inputs and perspectives on this. I thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you very much for both of you. Thank you very much for providing the context. Now I turn to all of you. If you have questions, please start lining up in the microphone to my left. There are online participates. I believe we also have and can take questions them. Please introduce yourself and ask your question. Try to be as short as possible. We have approximately 45‑50 minutes. Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you for introducing and living the spirit of the whole process so well. I know it is a lot of work. I think you convey the idea really well and the way you explain things. I'm Jan. I work in the development organisation. I care for the developing of fair ecosystems. We had four sessions yesterday before yesterday which covering various aspects in the meeting. Why in the new AI and social media, journalism is important. However, I note that it is not fully recognised in the elements paper. Unlike the global digital compact where really the language on human rights as a freedom of expression is very explicit and the independence of media.

Unfortunately, the elements is not yet. I would, you know, encourage you to look into this. Of course, I would also as you said stress that the multistakeholder approach for us is equally important as a media development and digital rights community. Of course, including the human rights aspects and the digital governance of public infrastructure. This is something we strongly support as the development sector. I would like to emphasis, you know, the line nine which is a bit old language should not be forgotten and what we agreed upon in New York. Thank you very much.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you so much.

Please.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Caesar with the Internet society. We are a non‑profit founded in 1982. We thank you for the opportunity for having this consultation. We have the vision that everyone must have a fundamental to connect and innovate and in a way to share and be safe and trust on the Internet. The activities and the recommendation for the zero draft is to recognise it is flexible and existing on emerging challenges and we believe this is the most prioritised actions to achieving the connectivity. Support the free flow of data and the use of tools in the nature of the Internet and measures that could lead to the fragmentation. They ensure they have implements and the work of the WSIS action align. We would like to have the national initiatives. We have the achievements are the result of decades with the technical community that is stakeholder that should be mentioned. We believe it recommits to the model and the Internet allowing innovation to thrive within the WSIS framework. Thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Hello. Good morning. I'm Gandia. Thank you for the opportunity to participate. We look forward to further consultations with you.

So, the first point we want to make. This is what is missing in the elements paper that we think should be in any case in the zero draft. Our first question. You just mention it in the elements paper. It is very important. It is the integration of the implementation of the global digital compact into the WSIS architecture. I think there's a large agreement in the community. We've seen that. The architecture that we have implements anything and many parts of the GDC, amongst other things by developing the joint implementation which is a proposal from the commission on science and technology for development that was adopted a couple of months ago.

Also, by using the contents, what we do in the United States by implementing what we already have in the action alliance. Fortunately, the action alliance as somebody put it today is agnostic. On the infrastructure, we can make it even more. By the UN group on information society and including new offices like the OHCHR, ODEP, UN women, et cetera, would be very important. Also by connecting the WSIS forum. It helps them to establish the framework and on the digital corporations. Finally, of course, as we're here in the IGF, we call for a permanent, sustainable, and well‑funded IGF with the stronger secretariat with different proposals. What we think we should change immediately more or less in the wording we've seen in the paper is the language on Internet governance which is a very old language from 2003 or 2002. We should really base our discussions on language from WSIS+ 10 or even better from Net Mundial.

It is important for us to state it is not just one issue. It is the implement about all of the issues. It is an instrument. It is established by WSIS as an implement equally as the WSIS forum is an implement. It is not an issue. It is really the scope of all of the things we discussed with the Internet governance and the working definition of 2005. There you go from the governance of the Internet over to the governance on the Internet, including your emerging topics like AI which we have been discussing here at IGF for more than eight years.

Finally, the human rights language as we've heard from so many people is completely not adequate to what we agreed. We have to be careful and use the latest and best language that we have.

As for the process towards the good outcome and document that we think and we welcome all of the efforts that you are doing in having an opening and inclusive process, it is important to have a clear plan on when are the having the consultations that they regroup. So that we can travel from the capital to New York to take part in the conversations. The more people from capital from all stakeholders groups that you have, the more ownership that you'll have in the result of the conversation. And how you do the consultation, we would really urge you to have joint sessions together with all stakeholders, government and stakeholders. Nothing silos, but together in the same room at the same time. We can be creative on how we do that. Or at the minimum. We can allow those that travel to New York. I'm sorry for being so long.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Please.

>> AUDIENCE: Good morning. I want to thank the community. The inclusion on equal footing needs to be the foundation of Internet governance. I respectfully address the zero draft address the Internet governance section in such a ways that consistent with the multistakeholder model that's in place and has enabled the Internet to thrive for the last several decades and enabled global society to reap its benefits.

Explicitly naming the technical community and academia as stakeholders is a critical element of what needs to be in the draft. Regarding the government initials, the technology that we're seeing innovation daily without the risks of it being considered would benefit. I would recommend that the zero draft provide for all stakeholders, including the Civil Society. The multigovernance approach can allow what it has done for the government and AI.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you so much. Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: On behalf of the youth IGF Germany, I would like to thank you for the openness of the process and the opportunity to contribute to the WSIS+ 20 review. This includes the reflection of the strength of the multistakeholder model. It rearraigns the Internet governance must remain global and multistakeholder nature. It also highlights the essential role of the Internet governance forum to implement the approach.

Therefore, we believe the next phase should focus on strengthening and shaping the mandate, not really‑negotiating its existence. We propose a permanent mandate ensuring trust for the established processes.

As we reflect on two decades of WSIS and look ahead for the next 20 years, you must acknowledge today's youth will be the ones implementing the outcomes of the review. Youth should be recognised as a key stakeholder group, ensuring the WSIS community is sustainable, inclusive, and oriented. Looking ahead, we face the channels, including the environmental impact of technology, deepening digital divides, for example, highlighted by the maps recently published on data centers by the international energy agency and persistence human rights as you highlighted in the elements paper.

At same time, the long‑term implications remain uncertain. It should include reinforcing the technology and expanding international and regional IGF as grassroot incubators for the digital policy innovation. The spaces are essential for shaping the people centered, inclusive, and development oriented information society as was always planned for the goal. Thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

>> AUDIENCE: Good morning. My name is Ellie McDonald. I work for Global Partners Digital, it is a society and human rights organisation, and we're a member of the global organisation for WSIS. I see a few of my colleagues from the coalition behind me as well. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. We greatly appreciate it.

I would like to make some brief suggestions on recommendations, as well as those we recommend the added. In addition, realigning from the WSIS or Net Mundial. To achieve this, we would strongly support the recommendations made by Switzerland to incorporate and avoid duplication and efficient use of resources.

Second, we have clear next steps for a permanent and sustainable IGF within the WSIS architecture. It is a primary multistakeholder forum. It is more important than ever, especially for underrepresented and under siege opportunities.

Finally, I would like to thank again the co‑facilitators for your openness and the WSIS+ 20 review disserted by organisations and exports across the opportunities. Inclusion happens through the informal multistakeholder and beyond. Dialogue will take place especially at the early stage. Thank you for your attention.

>> SPEAKER: If we can go to the remote participants. We have two questions. Thank you very much. I believe we have one question from Amali.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Amali. I thank you very much for the consultation with all of us. Thank you very much. I just want to highlight the importance of dynamic coalitions. Hello, can you hear me now? Did it just start?

>> SPEAKER: We can hear you. Can you please introduce yourself?

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you so much. I'm Amali. I'm the coordinator for the dynamic coalition on data‑driven and health technologies. I thank you very much for the public consultation. I want to highlight a couple of things. The IGF dynamic coalitions provide a tremendous opportunity for global participation. It is free of charge, multicultural, and diversed ethnically with age and culture and geographic regions and so forth. We host virtual conversations. I wanted to highlight the importance of this in bringing together everybody globally to build consensus to build and so forth. I wanted to highlight the great opportunity that the dynamic coalitions and the Internet governance forum provides. Thank you so much.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. I believe we have another remote participant that would like to intervene. Am I right?

>> AUDIENCE: Can you hear me?

>> SPEAKER: Yes. We can. Please introduce yourself.

>> AUDIENCE: Hello excellencies and colleagues, I'm Armithi. My colleagues and I presented the statements during the consultations which occurred a month ago. We wish to extend those reflections further and speak on the urgent issues that must be addressed in any output in the future of digital governance. We must recognise the conversations we're having today are and will be shaped by the generations and many teens that young people and youth that are active in the space. Teens like myself are too often systemically excluded in the process.

Digital governance is frequently defined youth as ages 18‑35. It leaves out the credit teen years, despite the fact that teens are deeply engaged. The exclusion is not just a technical oversight; it is structural flaw. The language matters. When teens are being described, our presentation contributions and lived experience online are ignored. We're already shaping the digital world. We have deserved to be recognised as stakeholder today.

Therefore, we respectfully urge that the language of the paper and forthcoming discussions explicitly reflect the fundamental role of teens. Not just referred to as children, youth, or young people, but teens, a distinct, legally and ethically‑recognised group. We also urge for the recognition of a clear rights‑base approach digital governance that recognise our role and stake in the digital future. Thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you so much. I believe that's it from the remote participants. Back to you.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm not of the youth IGF. Apologies. I'm glad to see you in person. I'm with the policy network for meaningful access co‑chair. I wanted to just highlight that we are intellecting since four years already the best practices and policies about the meaningful access across the world. We have a depository of hundreds of cases. What can be done? This is, I think, the best contribution of the IGF can give to the process for the digitalisation that we want to make possible and accessible to everybody. This is the things that can be bring in the future plans for the next WSIS that for me has to be permanent in this to be sustainable. As has been said by many of us.

Of course, we shall send the report even before we are supposed to deliver by November. We can provide you the list of actionable proposals and policies that are applicable somewhere. Second half is as my Civil Society organisation representative, of course, as I said will support what has been said by the paper. We want to have a permanent and sustainable IGF. I want just to stress something that's important.

The IGF is the only place that we have about digital transition. All stakeholders are on equal footing. This is the only place through the dynamic coalitions and policy networks. You can see the policy that would be decided at the global level could impact and which could be the reaction to the communities. The problem that we have to solve are not problem that can be solved by the government or industry. They need to be fruit of the common evidence.

The future IGF has to be relevant actor in the GDC implementation. That's my recommendation.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you so much. We have 27 minutes. We have a long line. Try to be brief.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Jordan Carter. I work for the dot AU domain administration which runs the dot AU domain. I'm speaking as the multistakeholderism who are part of delivering the infrastructure that makes the Internet work. A lot has been said already. I welcome the comments about the controversies in the course of the welcome. The Internet governance could be updated to affect it is multistakeholder as per the language in the GDP last year. We want to see the technical opportunity the people who make the Internet as a key contributor to achieving the SDG and the ambitions of the framework being recognized in all of the Internet governance institutions.

We would call on the IGF getting a permanent mandate and sustainable funding, so that people can really plan and invest in the long term in making it the best forum it can be and increasing its impact in the various digital policy and digital governance processes that are coming up. We join also the call for the GDP to be implemented through the WSIS framework. It is difficult enough for many organisations to engage in Internet governance and digital governance more broadly. It is best not to proliferate new forums thank you for your attention.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Please introduce yourself.

>> AUDIENCE: Bonjour. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm Abajil. I'm coming from the chat. I'm coming from an organisation called House of Africa. Thank you. This is the first time we see face to face. I was there for, you know, online consultation. Thank you for being open for the open consultation to listen to the community. So we thank you for this opportunity. For us, we need to clear like framework. This is our duplication. We don't need the duplication. We have a lot of uses in the world. We don't need duplication and inside the digital world. And we agree also with the frame change that is a good idea for the digital that the action. And also consider the sustainable funding for the IGF is very important. The mandate is very important. Without the law it is a global idea. It will be very important to have this and to have the permanent mandate on that also. It is a strong carrier.

We need to support them; we need to have a strong secretariat. Also, we need to know the roles of the Civil Society. And the youth implementation. Without the youth, we cannot have the ideas also. It is diverse voices that is very clear and very important to renew the mandate. And to consider everyone it is not closed meeting and closed decision. We need to be open. Anyone cannot be in New York. I was suggesting to have and help the UN national coordinator to gather all of the people to listen to them. I think that's very important. I need to stay here. Thank you so much.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you so very much. Please.

>> AUDIENCE: Your excellencies, thank you for the opportunity. I'm Maria and I speak on behalf of the Brazil that's part of the global alliances such as the global south alliance, the global customers misforum, and the global alliance for WISI. I would like to bring two points shared by the review. The first point concerns the need to strengthen the multistakeholder language to what we see. It has been moved the stakeholder.

Governance at the top or contents level involves legitimate state concerns. But the way the governance is implemented affability other and consequently, other stakeholders and global corporation as a whole. State concerns rely on other stakeholders to function in a way that benefits everyone. Especially the people at the center and originally the WSIS vision.

When we talk about the stakeholder, we are talking about meaningful participation and increase interaction in the stakeholders and decision makers as we're doing right now. We need effective dialogues between the actors and for that the guidelines agreed upon last year serve as a foundation for the path forward.

My second point is about strengthening within the WSIS architecture. We believe not only in the continuity of the IGF, but the feedback loop. This local spaces can serve as bridges between governmental representations and the implementation of global governance actions national context and vice versa.

The WSIS outcome document should recognise the already existing network and shake holder governance, encouraging better communication, especially newcomers and policymakers. That way we can be more effective in the reactions aligned with the realities and the populations affected by the digital life and all of the dimensions.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you so much.

>> AUDIENCE: Hi. That's always ‑‑ I'm holding many things. Thanks so much. It is always the problem with different people of different heights. Hi, I'm speaking for women at the table but also the gender in the global digital compact coalition which is APC, policy, UN women, UN FPA, equality now, and many other colleagues. We would like to actually think about the idea of how do we do a human‑rights‑based approach which you had asked. How do we integrate it? We think it will help address the digital divide, help integrate environmental issues, deal with the digital economy, and by addressing taking the human rights‑based approach that's impact‑based, community based, and gender‑based.

We speak also for the joint road map in the global digital compact. We would like to propose a standalone gender action line which would help deal with the issues and bring us forward. We know the global digital compact has a standalone paragraph. We know the SDG number five on gender. We believe this will help bring this technology agnostic but also very, very gender neutral and help bring us forward in the way we want to go. All people in the intersectionality that was left out of decision making.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

>> AUDIENCE: Good morning. I will take only a few minutes. We only have so much time. I'm from Portugal. I'm that. Not to say the position, but to highlight what I think is important in all of the discussion. So there was a question that was ‑‑ which was how the structural gaps in the digital economy can be surpassed. To answer the question, only a few elements for this very broad question. It will be very important to emphasis the role of the national and regional initiatives.

In this way, I think that we structural will be helping lots of regions and lots of countries. I think this is one of the mainstreams of the IGF. You can perceive IGF. You can see what has been achieved so far. 20 years. Lots of work. Lots of ears working a lot. This cannot only be perceived as a small forum, this is the forum of the Internet governance. The Internet governance it is not what is mentioned in the global digital compact.

During the negotiation as far as I remember, Internet governance was set. Let's get the discussion to be discussed in the next year. So we are in the next year. Internet governance it is not about only the technical community, of course. It is about what is off in the Internet and on in the Internet as they normally say for long years. So many years.

So, it is much more and I think that you are aware of that. On the digital infrastructure, please count on ITU, on AI, count more on UNESCO. We need a more clear understanding of the institutional framework of the UN. And otherwise it is a mess. We really need to now wear our human resources can be allocated and rightly allocated.

Finally, I would like to mention the need for the main of the entity. It is very important, but it is not delivering properly. We have to involve the other stakeholders, et cetera. I think that there's a lot of information how it could be updated. Thank you very much.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. We have literally 15 minutes. Ten of you. I would also like to give a couple of minutes to the co‑facilitators to respond. Please be brief. Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Good morning. I'm Lucia. I'm on behalf of the Latin American NGO with the expertise on the issues. We would like to draw the attention on three critical points.

The first one is about human rights. The section dedicated to it. Acknowledged that human rights are central to the WSIS vision, the suggested narrative only diverts from the vision expressed on the past provisions or reviewed of WSIS and also worsens the position of human rights in the process by giving away to a punitive rather than those of protection guarantee and respect of human rights as it will be respected in the process. We need to advance to the gender perspective and people‑center view that contextualise this WSIS coordination to the process.

The second point concerns the need to articulate the GDC and the WSIS. We know this is only mentioned in the AA section. It needs to be in the content of the document. We would like to express bringing the perspective. For example, we are aware that the development within the framework of the entire technical platform as well as the framework with caters that track national public policies and digital markers and the connection to the GDC goals and SDG, we have enhanced the process through the action lines, for example. The agreements reach in the review.

And the third point concerns the apparent need to not backtrack, but rather to advance innovations that have firmed the relevance of multistakeholderism. We have learned in the 20 years many lessons. We strongly advice and strengthen and review the IGF mandate to strengthen all is well the outputs that such model can produce and to monitor its implementation and results. It is still early in the phase to suggest to how such integration like. We believe the elements paper should point to. Thank you very much.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Please.

>> AUDIENCE: Your excellencies. Chair, thank you for the consultation. I'm Neal Wilson. We feel the headings generally provide a reasonable overview of the issues recognises the progress made and the urgent need to connect the final third of the population that's offline. We particularly welcome the emphasis on sustainable development, environmental impacts, bridging digital divides, enables, human rights, and capacity building. More generally, we are concerned by some areas of the paper, not reflecting the agreements reached just last year in the GDC, particularly on Internet governance, data, and AI.

On Internet governance, we are surprised it doesn't recognise. The Internet governance must remain and be global in multistakeholder in nature. We were disappointed the paper doesn't recognise the many calls for the permanent mandate for the IGF and recognise the role of local and regional IGF and play an important role. The UK is among those calling for the permanent mandate. On data governance, we don't believe it should have its own section.

Similarly on build confidence and security, the section that we feel should say more about promoting cyber resilience as part of the development agenda. They have acknowledged and are addressed through the other processes, which the WSIS review should not duplicate. We note the member states recognise the importance of integrating the initiative into the WSIS process. We fully support that and hope the zero draft will support the agreement.

Thank you. We look forward to continuing the multistakeholder dialogue.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Please.

>> AUDIENCE: Good morning. I will speak on behalf of the Global Digital Forum. The religious come from endorsements for the WSIS + 20. There needs to be clarity on the manners in the which the rule of law needs to be operationalised. Considering the norms, across several traditional areas from the intellectual property, data, taxation, compensation, and climate are currently not updated for the digital context. This is being exploited opportunistically. This must be acknowledged. All countries must be seen as the digital justice which is necessary to finance and in accordance with well-established economic governance.

The digital development tax made by company that is have benefited from decades for the free and open Internet must contribute to connectivity of the people who are still offline and to the safer digital world and taking action including through a UN tax convention that's comprehensive and inclusive with no digital economy, international trade that respects the sovereignty for all countries and replacing the revenues through collection of taxes from the trans‑national corporations. The mechanisms can be discussed. It is important to broaden beyond the user right to put human right at the forefront of the accountability in the cross value chains on data and AI.

It is important to recognise that meaningful and affordable access in the AI context includes the pursuit of self‑determination. This means data flows required more than just. They need to be based on rights, including the right to development.

Finally on monitoring and measurement, we called for the appropriate metrics to assess the progress on the WSIS that includes aspects of social and economic justice, including equity and diversity. They call for the systemic national review of the progress on the annual basis with greater coordination between the WSIS forum and the IGF. Thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Please make it brief.

>> AUDIENCE: Hi. Hi, everyone. Thank you so much. Excellencies, colleagues, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Anna Olson. I speak on behalf of Article 19, a local to global human rights focusing on free speech and related rights.

First of all, I would like to thank you for organising the session. It is amazing to be here with all of the stakeholders in the technical communities, member states, Civil Society, academia, private sector. This is amazing. We would love to see this going forward. A lot has been said. I'm going to keep it very brief. I want to pick up on three key points look forward to the zero draft of the outcome document.

First and foremost, we really need to anchor the zero draft and bolster the role. The zero draft should include freedom of speech, privacy, data protection, quality of non‑discrimination with gender equality by its core which has been raised by colleagues.

We really need to think about how the zero draft can promote and safeguard against human rights abuses which is surveillance, Internet shutdowns, and restrictions, online censorship, and attaches on the Internet media and journalist as was mentioned before.

One thing I want to pick up on is we need to ignore the private sector as for the UN guidance principles on business and human rights. Also, we would like to see support for small community and non‑profit operators to offer connectivity for the rural and remote communities.

On my second point, I can be brief. Multistakeholder governance has been mentioned by many. I would like to highlight one aspect of it. The zero draft if it could reference the Sao Paulo report.

My final point is inclusion. At the moment, they are missing a whole number of groups. Some have spoken and highlighted this. We need to integrate all under represented regions, all underrepresented groups communities, including under siege Civil Society activist and journalist to ensure more equitable, responsive, transparent, and context aware governance frameworks.

Thank you so much.

>> SPEAKER: Thanks.

I keep sending people away. Please we have four minutes and we want to respond.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Monika. Thank you for arranging the session and the sounding works. If there would be more consultations at the regional level. We would like to welcome you to the APrIGF, in case you can come and what they have to say on that. We would also, you know, obviously, we would want the IGF to have a permanent mandate strengthened in all facilities. We would also want ‑‑ we have the policy network on AI at the IGF which is doing a lot of AI work.

How can we have more synergies in it? I will keep it brief. We have others. Thank you so much. We submitting the submissions. We look forward to more engagement.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you so much.

>> AUDIENCE: Hello. I'm Jennifer Chung. I'm going to be brief as well. The previous speakers call for the submission of the technical community, especially in the paragraphs which call about Internet governance, paragraph 64. There's jarring transition between 59 and 60. We need to be sure we're not going from the important policy shaping and agenda setting values to the governance of and governance on the Internet.

Colleagues have mentioned the lack of the mention of the NRI and the national and regional. This is not the final text. Please have this in the zero text.

One aspect that I want to call out is the dimension of the multilingual of the Internet. English is not spoken in my home region. We need internationalisation. It is extremely important.

Finally, thank you again for having an APAC friendly session. I reiterate to come to the APrIGF.

>> SPEAKER: Please.

>> AUDIENCE: I'll be very brief. We would like to see the multistakeholder reflected in the outcome document for the permanent IGF position that's integrated in the architecture. This means that the process we are getting there, we would like to see more multidirectional and communication joined consultations where we can exchange in a more formal and informal settings.

Second, we believe that building on this, we believe the certain communities and those that we are representing here are not having enough space. Special consultations in the journalist and they are here to help you.

Thirdly, in regarding to the element paper, as many of my colleagues here mentioned, strengthen human rights, the language is essential. Making sure that actually refers to international human rights treaties that are essential for the protection of the freedom of expression.

Finally, we believe for the context of the media, it is right to preserve and the successes and achievements that were established understood the GDC.

Thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I'm Elanai. I will be very brief. We do not have much time. We are members of the global digits rights coalition for WSIS. We echo the points made by our colleagues. I would add in the zero draft it would be wonderful to see affirmation of the private sector respecting the UNGPs.

Lastly, I would just say that thank you for the opportunity to engage and participate. It would be great to see further information about how inputs are being used. Both verbal and written input as the consultations proceed.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Literally one second. We are told that we need to wrap it up.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm from the organising committee of the Australia's National IGF. We appreciate the work that has gone into the paper. There's more recent language. We like to see the text updated. We like to see the technician, such as the technical community. We play a crucial role that we would like to see that reflected as well. We like a permanent mandate for the IGF and recognition it is an implement for dealing with issues it is not itself an issue. We would also appreciate a clear timeline as soon as possible and ensure that consultations are hybrid to allow participation from all parts of the world and stakeholders who aren't resourced to attendance.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: 20 seconds. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I echo my sentiments from my colleagues. We welcome the elements paper. We have a couple of key points which is in the part of the global south stakeholder. The IGF for sustainable funding, specifically for the participation in the multistakeholder process. Grounded in the principles.

Second, we call on human rights to be grounded in the UDHR and there's no languages and the fragmentation is not present. Then lastly that the implementation should be carried within the architecture. They are not forced to participate which is existing resources.

Thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Very quickly, we need to go to the remote. 30 seconds I would like to give 30 seconds really to the ambassadors to say the last words. Please, go ahead.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my input. This is part of the Internet government. We have to land and contribute to the Internet government and we would like to ask that to be include the pair of the IGF mandate that can be the inclusive government framework for the IGF for truly human‑centered information society that bring more vices to the forefront to be included on the ‑‑ to be included our input in the upcoming version.

>> SPEAKER: Sorry. You need to wrap up. We are told that we need to leave. Please.

>> AUDIENCE: Yeah. The last part is we would like to mention that everyone is responsible for our future. Every generation needs to take accountability and responsibility for action while making sure that we are listening.

>> SPEAKER: All right. Literally one word. I'm sorry. Please.

>> ALBANIA: First of all, thank you. This is meaningful and encouraging. The elements paper was only the starting point. We have the whole process in front of us. I want to emphasise the fact that this kind of engagement is very much inspiring. We'll continue with the consultations. Please send your contributions in written. The deadline is by 15 of July. We will extend it if we see there's greater interest on the process.

At the same time, we'll reflect on your request to have joint consultations. By the end of July, you can have the possibility to express your views again. We will be announcing the future steps in the web site of the UN. Follow us. Any kind of opportunity that you have we can be present in your regional consult days, let us know. We are just on the way to try to assure you that the process will be open, transparent, and inclusive. Please be engaged. We appreciate your efforts and the spirit, lively spirit that we are seeing here at IGF.

>> SPEAKER: One last word.

>> KENYA: Mine is to thank you for the open mind in which you engaged. We intend to run a transparent and inclusive process. We will let you know.

As you know, please give us your comments on this orally and also in writing. I thank you.

>> SPEAKER: Thank you all. Sorry for those who hasn't spoken. Apologies to you.